Author talk:Frances Fuller Victor

Add topic
Active discussions

Poetry versions pages guideEdit

{{versions
|title=Poem
|author=Frances Fuller Victor
|notes={{center|''First line''}}}}

*"[[Poems of Sentiment and Imagination/Poem|Poem]]" in ''[[Poems of Sentiment and Imagination]]'' (1851)
*"[[The Poets and Poetry of the West: With Biographical and Critical Notices/Frances Fuller Barritt#000|Poem]]" in ''[[The Poets and Poetry of the West: With Biographical and Critical Notices|The Poets and Poetry of the West]]'' (1860)
*"[[The New Penelope/Poem|Poem]]" in ''[[The New Penelope]]'' (1877)
*"[[Poems (Victor)/Poem|Poem]]" in ''[[Poems (Victor)|Poems]]'' (1900)

Works republished under a different nameEdit

@TE(æ)A,ea.: asked a question here; it ties into a broader question, so I'm replying here instead.

I've found a somewhat unusual situation in Fuller's work, which I haven't been able to fully analyze or understand, and which raises questions for how Wikisource should present her works. For two of her best known book-length works, she seems to have republished them years later, with a fair amount of editing, a new title, and (in the second case) additional photographs. I have scoured the secondary literature about Victor (primarily works by Mills and Martin) to find a mention of this, to see if I could learn anything more about her motivations in doing so, etc., but I have come up short. (To be clear, the only basis I have for saying that one is an edited version of the other is my own perception; there's a great deal of common text in each case, but nowhere in the works themselves, or in the scholarship about Victor, have I found a more authoritative claim about it.)

These are the works:

In the first case, there's actually something significant - in the seven years after the publication of her most famous work, Victor's views on Marcus Whitman's role in Oregon history began to shift, in what later became a defining element of her career.

As it stands now, the later (presumably more thoroughly edited) editions are more complete on Wikisource, but the earlier titles are the better known ones.

So, I think a valid end-goal would be that all four works would be fully transcribed on Wikisource, with appropriate links among them in the "notes" field. But that will take a long time; what to do until we get there? I chose to create All Over Oregon and Washington purely for the ability to link to Atlantis Arisen, so that a reader searching on the more famous name could learn that there is something relevant for them here on Wikisource. But maybe that's not the best way to do it. We could also create a redirect, but I think there are downsides with that as well.

I'm eager for another perspective on all this. I'm sort of at a loss. -Pete (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I should note, there are four versions of All Over Oregon... at Internet Archive. From a quick glance, this one looks to have pretty good OCR: IA I'd be happy to import it and start working on it, though I am mindful that TE(ae)A,ea has asked me to import images for some other works too. So, I won't forge ahead on this one until we've made some progress on that. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Update for future reference...I looked at all four, and this one seems to be the best OCR. -Pete (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, (and this is obviously not the case here,) a work published under two separate titles should be scan-backed under one name, and the other should be created as a redirection page to the extant title. As, in this case, the two titles refer to two substantially different editions of (what is roughly) the same work, I do not know of any guidance regarding this situation from my past experience of editing. It would be most preferable to have scan-backed worked at both titles; however, due to time constraints, that may not be readily accomplished. I believe that the current situation is acceptable, as long as the page is readily received of a scan, with the intention of completing the transcription; otherwise, the page is, alas, quite useless. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC).